REFORM, PARLIAMENTARY. the naive generally given to the acts which passed the legislature of the United Kingdom in 1822, by which an extensive change was made in the system of parliamentary representation. Parliamentary reform had for many years before been a topic of popular agitation. So far back as 1782, a motion by Mr. Pitt for a reform of the franchise was lost by a majority of 20, and similar motions in the years 1783 and 1785 by majorities of 44 and 74. The horror inspired by the excesses of the French revolution caused a reaction, and the repression for a time of all liberal tenden cies; and it was not till sonic time after the close of the French war that the desire for reform again manifested itself. Mercantile distress had added to the popular dissatisfac tion, which was fomented by the revolutions of 1830 in France and Belgium; and an adjustment of the inequalities of the representative system, with an extended franchise. was looked forward to as a panacea for all the ills under which the community labored. The demand for parliamentary reform became more imperious on the death of George IV. and accession of William IV. Meetings were held over all the country, and though there was no open rioting, a constant alarm wits kept up. On the resignation of the duke of Wellington, Nov. 10, 1880, the celebrated reform ministry of earl Grey came into office. Parliament assembled on Feb. 8. 1881. and on Mar. 1 lord John Russell proposed his first scheme of reform. After a long and animated discussion, the bill passed the second reading by a majority of 1. On the motion for a committee, gen. Gascople moved, as an amendment, that the number of representatives for England and Wales should not he diminished; and the amendment being carried by a majority of 8, the ministry abandoned the bill, and resorted to a dissolution. The cry arose through the country of "The bill, the whole bill, mid nothing but the bill;" and when the new parliament assembled on June 14, a large majority, including the whole of the county members for England, excepting four or live, were pledged to support the bill, which was again introduced on June 24, and passed the third reading of the house of commons by a majority of 113.
The upper house, however, threw it out on the second reading, by a majority of 41, and par liament was immediately prorogued. It reassembled on Dec. 6, and on Dcc. 12 the third reform bill was introduced in the commons by lord John Russell, which did not, like the former bills, diminish the number of members—a concession which the opposition consid ered as an improvement. And it halo majority of 116 on the third reading. In the lords, the second reading was carried by a majority of 9, and the bill ordered to he committed. Iu committee, lord Lyndhurst carrieil, by a majority of 35, a motion that the disfran chising clause should be postponed, and the enfranchising first considered; on which, the king having refused to accede to a creation of peers sufficient to carry the bill, the min istry resigned. A. week of intense public agitation followed. The government were induced to resume office on the king grouting them full powers to secure majorities by the creation of peers; but eventually that expedient was avoided by a sufficient number of lords absenting themselves to leave ministers a majority on the third reading, when the bill passed by a majority of 84, receiving the royal assent by commission on June 7, 1832. Reform bills for Scotland and Ireland were immediately afterward introduced and caigied. For the details of-the alterations made by these several measures on the distribution of members and the electoral qualification, see PARLIAMENT. The changes effected were so sweeping as to cause many of the advocates of reform to be apprehensive that the balance of the constitution would be disturbed by the m eponderance of the dem ocratic element; but the determination of the masses was such, that the conservative influences of the country were powerless to stay or modify the measure. Yet no sooner was the contest at an.eud than a reaction followed. falsifying equally the hopes of the supporters of the bill, and the fears of its opponents.